November 10th, 2010 at 5:30 PM ^

UTSA hasn't had a team either. I think they are having their first FCS season next year. They hired Larry Coker (formerly of that Miami) and have been pulling recruits from the fertile Austin/San Antonio area fairly well for never having had a team.

Oh, and their home non-conference schedule starting in 2013 is more impressive than Michigan's over the last decade. Truth.


November 10th, 2010 at 6:43 PM ^

Wow the Wac has fallen hard.  Now the equivalent of the western sun belt.  

It will be interesting to see how UTSA fits in the new WAC, with coker as head coach.  My money is on them emerging as the new leader of the conference.


November 10th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^

With all these new up and coming programs into D1A college football, I wonder if and/or when there'll be a reckoning among the mid major schools. UTSA and Texas State are an hour and a 1/2 hour from Austin, TX, respectively. Which means their fans are going to be students and alumni - al other college football fans in their market will be UT fans. The same situation goes for Eastern Michigan, Western Kentucky, Louisiana-Lafayette, Alabama-Birmingham, and I'm sure plenty more I'm forgetting. I even feel like most of the people I've met who've gone to directional Michigan schools (with the notable exception of Central) are bigger fans of UM or MSU.

I know all the financial benefits that football brings at schools like Michigan, Texas, OSU, etc and the brand recognition they bring that can't be measured easily. And I believe D1A football has those same benefits for less profitable programs like MSU, Rutgers, Pitt, and even Central Michigan. But I have a hard time believing it'll have those benefits for newer programs playing in already crowded markets without an established fan base. With added pressure to federal and state budgets coming, I feel that this latest wave of new programs jumping to D1A may have a few success stories like USF or Boise State, but the vast majority of them and some of the other newer programs won't be playing D1A football in the near future.


November 10th, 2010 at 7:08 PM ^

Texas A&M I believe was the equivaent of Michigan State - as a land grant school (and a military school). UT was established later as the premier school, and Texas Tech was made for a regional school for West Texans.

At least that's what someone from Tech told me.


November 10th, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^

They're actually on something like their 6th name.They had been Southwestern Texas State Normal School, then Southwestern Texas State Normal College, then Southwestern Texas State Teachers College, then Southwestern Texas State College, then Southwestern Texas State University, and then finally Texas State University - San Marcos.

Rather annoying. Part of the most recent change was an attempt to rebrand itself. The going joke around Texas was that their drinking team had a football problem. The school was, oddly, the party school destination in Texas. Go figure with it's past emphasis on education majors (aka high percentage of women students in a state known for some good looking women, and aka a major that doesn't require the most studious efforts).

They're also one of the largest universities in the state (behind UT, A&M, Tech, Baylor, & Houston), and ~50 in the nation.

Their football team isn't actually that bad in the FCS. They're consistently at the top of the Southland Conference, including 2 recent conference titles.


November 10th, 2010 at 7:43 PM ^

I wonder if Montana took a look at that list and decided to wait for a better opportunity.  That was the one school I could see coming in and not killing the WAC as a football conference.  At this point I'd be surprised if the WAC lasts the decade.


November 10th, 2010 at 8:16 PM ^

Seriously...the CAA will be a better conference than the WAC and Sun Belt by that time. The FBS/FCS distinction makes sense, but I think the stadium requirements are hogwash, because without that, the CAA could petition to be in the FBS.